A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Tamminen
Posts: 723
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tamminen » March 29th, 2018, 11:27 am

Gertie wrote:
March 29th, 2018, 4:17 am
Well the notion of an 'I' perceiving its thoughts, would mean the 'I' is something other than its experiential states. Something which doesn't itself think (an experiential state), but does perceive (an experiential state) its thinking. So such a claim would require a lot of explanation, not to mention evidence.
You are right: to say that I perceive my thoughts is misleading in this context. But if you ignore that, the rest of the post should be valid.

When I say that I perceive my thoughts I am saying that I reflect them. This is exactly what Descartes did. If I were Descartes, I would think this way: I have a perception of a bird. I have a thought of my perception of a bird. These are my experiential states. But my having these experiential states is not itself an experiential state. So I have thoughts, and this ordinary language expression tells us the situation clearly enough. That I have thoughts means that my thoughts are mine only, although I can speak about them with others.

Now when I reflect or perceive my thoughts, I find out what happens when I think. I see the situation as a totality. And the totality is this: I am conscious of the world. This totality consists of a “holy trinity”: (1) I am (2) conscious of (3) the world. None of these components of the whole can be removed without destroying the totality. So the “I” remains if the world remains. And if the world is something that necessarily exists, also I must necessarily exist, although not as the individual subject I happen to be.

This means that the “I” is an abstraction. I cannot be without my being conscious of the world and therefore without the being of the world. But in connection with the world I am concretely in the world. This is how the “I” exists. And this is why it must be presupposed. Because it is an abstraction without empirical content, there is no empirical evidence of it, but it can be detected in a phenomenological intuition, as Descartes did. And we must also presuppose it on logical grounds, because a thought needs a thinker, although not necessarily as an active agent.

So when Descartes concluded “I think, therefore I am”, he had an insight, as he reflected his own thinking, that his thinking and his thoughts must presuppose the being of something that he called 'I am': that subjectivity is fundamental as an ontological precondition of all thinking and all being whatsoever. Subjectivity transcends thinking and this transcending can be seen through thinking, by reflecting our thinking. That is why the subject, in its deepest meaning, is transcendental.

Another way to define the “I” is to say that it is the present abstracted from its content. In this way it gets connected to subjective time.

This is also the meaning of the sentence that I have repeated many times: If I did not exist, there would be nothing.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 316
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by SimpleGuy » March 29th, 2018, 1:41 pm

If not seen from the viewpoint of psychoanalysis but more from the viewpoint computer science , the I is a data representation layer together with an inference system, that somehow perceives a filtered context of clauses. This filtering is done by the subconsciousness, that somehow separates the enormous amount of data and tautologies possible to observe after the importance of everyday life. The subcouncious perceptions are endowed with a signature context , that provide some specifications in this environment of informations, s.th. nontrivial inference is possible.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Namelesss » March 29th, 2018, 8:30 pm

Gertie wrote:
March 29th, 2018, 3:52 am
Namelesss wrote:
March 29th, 2018, 1:30 am

Only for some.
For something to be logically, rationally 'resolved' does not require 'consensus', or 'belief'.
It requires an irrefutable argument.
The so-called 'hard problem' is resolved.
OK lets have it, irrefutably argue away!
An attitude of 'challenge' or an honest inquiry?
Okay, one more time;
A thumbnail, from a single direction (there are others);
Quantum mechanics has (also) revealed to us that 'matter', all that is ever perceived, is essentially, ultimately, Universally, 'composed' of Undifferentiated Mind, 'information waves', undifferentiated potential (Bindu)!

That translates to everything that you ever experience/Know, all the rocks and the sun and fishes and that body and daydreams and thoughts and... everything, is perceived as it is perceived; hard, soft, juicy, ephemeral... due to the inherent limitations of Perspectives.
But essentially, it all remains the same One Omni- Universe/God/Self.. Whatever!

Essentially, there is no distinction between the Himalayas and an addict's 'hallucination'!
Essentially, there is no distinction between 'body' and 'Mind', body IS Mindstuff!

(Reams of links to good science to support what I just thumb-nailed is available, all over the net, so, unless you need, in the interest of bandwidth, I'll leave that to you)

Or; we can even approach from classical physics (rebooted) when they finally admitted that they cannot, have not, ever discovered a definitive place where one thing ends and another 'thing' begins.

And there are other avenues ending in the same place, for instance mystics have (experientially) Known all this for millennia!

One irrefutable Law of the Universe is that anything can be argued (children prove that *__- ), but not necessarily intelligently or scientifically or philosophically; mere disagreement is not a logical refutation.

That certainly aught to be sufficient to at least begin an honest inquiry (on various 'paths') for the sincere seeker. *__-

Gertie
Posts: 594
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Gertie » March 30th, 2018, 6:36 am

Tam

I'm going to have to be pernickety here, for the sake of clarity.

You are right: to say that I perceive my thoughts is misleading in this context. But if you ignore that, the rest of the post should be valid.

When I say that I perceive my thoughts I am saying that I reflect them. This is exactly what Descartes did.
Reflect on your thoughts you mean? Ie think (have an experiential state) about the nature of your thoughts/experiential states?
If I were Descartes, I would think this way: I have a perception of a bird. I have a thought of my perception of a bird. These are my experiential states.
OK
But my having these experiential states is not itself an experiential state.

But this isn't self-evident. You've introduced the I-Subject who Has-Verb the Experiential States-Object. The question then arises, what is the I-Subject? Your physical body?

I posited an alternative, that a sense of self, a sense of being an I, is an experiential state itself, perhaps arising from the utility of creating a coherent world model out of the myriad perceptions and sensations. That idea comes from looking at how the brain works, it's grounded in observation.
So I have thoughts, and this ordinary language expression tells us the situation clearly enough. That I have thoughts means that my thoughts are mine only, although I can speak about them with others.
Where-as this is grounded in how our language works. But as I said before, our natural grammar works (presumably evolved to) represent the world of physical causation we deal with. I eat berries, I run from tiger, I have ten toes, etc. It doesn't necessarily follow that we can apply that causal way of thinking to experiential states. You could say My Body has experiential states, so are you saying 'I' is My Body? That assumes dualism, as monism suggests my neural processes are my mental states.
Now when I reflect or perceive my thoughts, I find out what happens when I think.
Again, reflecting on or perceiving your thoughts, is itself an experiential state, so here you're suggesting 'I' isn't your body, it's an experiential state. Contradicting your previous position that an 'I' is something else which has experiential states. So this still needs clearing up. What is this 'I' which isn't your body or your experiential states?
I see the situation as a totality. And the totality is this: I am conscious of the world. This totality consists of a “holy trinity”: (1) I am (2) conscious of (3) the world. None of these components of the whole can be removed without destroying the totality. So the “I” remains if the world remains. And if the world is something that necessarily exists, also I must necessarily exist, although not as the individual subject I happen to be.
We've discussed this before and didn't really persuade each other :) , so I'd still counter that one can't know if there's a world existing independently of one's experiential relationship with it, but if it does, then it will still be there when I sleep or die.
This means that the “I” is an abstraction. I cannot be without my being conscious of the world and therefore without the being of the world. But in connection with the world I am concretely in the world. This is how the “I” exists. And this is why it must be presupposed. Because it is an abstraction without empirical content, there is no empirical evidence of it, but it can be detected in a phenomenological intuition, as Descartes did. And we must also presuppose it on logical grounds, because a thought needs a thinker, although not necessarily as an active agent.
OK, so ''I'' is an abstract concept, which comes into being when it's in the world. Well yeah, I could say the same of the abstract concept of a potato or a lamp post couldn't I?
So when Descartes concluded “I think, therefore I am”, he had an insight, as he reflected his own thinking, that his thinking and his thoughts must presuppose the being of something that he called 'I am': that subjectivity is fundamental as an ontological precondition of all thinking and all being whatsoever. Subjectivity transcends thinking and this transcending can be seen through thinking, by reflecting our thinking. That is why the subject, in its deepest meaning, is transcendental.
So lamp posts and potatoes have experiential states?

Subjectivity is the word we use to describe having experiential states, not something apart from it. It manifests (in humans at least) as a discrete, unified field of consciousness, from a specific first person pov in time and space. That experiential package, is what a Subject is, what I mean when I say ''I''.

Gertie
Posts: 594
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Gertie » March 30th, 2018, 6:46 am

Nameless
An attitude of 'challenge' or an honest inquiry?
Both :wink:
Okay, one more time;
A thumbnail, from a single direction (there are others);
Quantum mechanics has (also) revealed to us that 'matter', all that is ever perceived, is essentially, ultimately, Universally, 'composed' of Undifferentiated Mind, 'information waves', undifferentiated potential (Bindu)!
I'm afraid I'm very ignorant when it comes to QM, I'd appreciate an idiot's guide explanation (yourself or a link) of how QM shows this?

Tamminen
Posts: 723
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tamminen » March 30th, 2018, 8:19 am

Gertie wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 6:36 am
Reflect on your thoughts you mean? Ie think (have an experiential state) about the nature of your thoughts/experiential states?
Yes.
But this isn't self-evident. You've introduced the I-Subject who Has-Verb the Experiential States-Object. The question then arises, what is the I-Subject? Your physical body?
No. My physical body is my instrument for being related to the world. The subject is transcendental but needs my body for its being. And there can be no experiental states floating around without an "I" whose experiental states they are. It is as simple as that.
I posited an alternative, that a sense of self, a sense of being an I, is an experiential state itself...
See above.
...monism suggests my neural processes are my mental states.
In a way they are, because they are the objective side of my relation to the material world. There is one relation, but the subjective side (mental states) and the objective side (neural processes) are conceptually incompatible. Therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness is unsurmountable, and that is because it is in fact a pseudo problem, like the "mind/body problem". They are both based on a misunderstanding of the structure of our being in the world, the subject-object relation which is fundamental, so that the subject is always already there as a presupposition of my being of the world.
Again, reflecting on or perceiving your thoughts, is itself an experiential state, so here you're suggesting 'I' isn't your body, it's an experiential state. Contradicting your previous position that an 'I' is something else which has experiential states. So this still needs clearing up. What is this 'I' which isn't your body or your experiential states?
You did not really get this. As I reflect on my thoughts, this reflecting is an experiential state, but I have this state among other experiential states, and this 'I have' is like 'I am', but none of them are experiental states. They are something more primordial, so that they cannot be eliminated by saying that there are only experiental states but nothing that has them.
We've discussed this before and didn't really persuade each other :) , so I'd still counter that one can't know if there's a world existing independently of one's experiential relationship with it, but if it does, then it will still be there when I sleep or die.
Yes, we can discuss this for ever, but you still do not seem to get what I mean by the interdependence of the subject and the world. I have never said that the world vanishes when I die, I only make logical conclusions of the fact that it does not vanish.
OK, so ''I'' is an abstract concept, which comes into being when it's in the world. Well yeah, I could say the same of the abstract concept of a potato or a lamp post couldn't I?
'Abstract' means a part of a totality without which the totality cannot exist, and which cannot exist apart from that totality. Or at least this is how I define it in this context. Or perhaps I should use another concept to better clarify my meaning.
So lamp posts and potatoes have experiential states?
Is my text really so cryptic that it makes you draw these kinds of conclusions?
Subjectivity is the word we use to describe having experiential states, not something apart from it. It manifests (in humans at least) as a discrete, unified field of consciousness, from a specific first person pov in time and space. That experiential package, is what a Subject is, what I mean when I say ''I''.
I repeat: experiental states cannot float around and suddenly say 'I am'. I have experiental states. I am conscious of the world, and the "I" cannot be eliminated by saying something like "there are consciousnesses of the world".

Tamminen
Posts: 723
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tamminen » March 30th, 2018, 11:29 am

One more thing. When I see a bird, I have a perception of the bird. But my seeing the bird or having the perception of the bird is not part of the perception. Now when I reflect on my perception of the bird, the content of my new perception can be described as "I saw a bird". The 'I saw' is now part of my perception. But the 'I' in the 'I saw' is the very same 'I' as the 'I' of my new perception of having seen a bird. The "I" connects the two perceptions as my perceptions. And because the "I" is part of the new perception, it can be detected, as was the case with Descartes. So I have experiences and I am the subject of all my experiences. I cannot eliminate myself from reality. Materialism tries to do so, and is therefore self-contradictory, in fact trying to eliminate itself.

Gertie
Posts: 594
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Gertie » March 30th, 2018, 12:01 pm

Tam

To hopefully cut to the chase -
Subjectivity is the word we use to describe having experiential states, not something apart from it. It manifests (in humans at least) as a discrete, unified field of consciousness, from a specific first person pov in time and space. That experiential package, is what a Subject is, what I mean when I say ''I''.
I repeat: experiental states cannot float around and suddenly say 'I am'. I have experiental states. I am conscious of the world, and the "I" cannot be eliminated by saying something like "there are consciousnesses of the world".
I go back to my point, you're just basing this on our normal language structure.

You could be right that there's a 'Something' other than the body which is an 'I' which 'has' experiential states, but your argument for it is that our language structure reflects this reality. You haven't answered my point that our language developed from the way we intuitively model the physical world based on evolutionary utility, and you can't assume that works in the case of experiential states. Maybe so, maybe not.

And you don't address my alternative hypothesis that a 'sense' of self might have evolved as part of the way we our experiential states 'organise' into coherent models, linked to them manifesting in discrete unified experiential packages with a specific first person pov (correlated with our physical body). Without invoking Something else. Just think how chaotic it would be to not have some mechanism which creates that coherent, filtered, unified model out all all the subsystem's 'input' of sights sounds, sensations, emotions, memories, etc. Every time you moved your head the world would shift on its axis, without memory which contributes to a sense of ongoing identity you'd be born anew every moment into a mysterious new world, without filtering, focus and attention you'd be overwhelmed, unable to make sense of the chaotic cacophony, and so on. (Try to imagine it for a moment, you'd be a lion's supper in no time). We've evolved these ways of organising our perceptions, so they can be useful, such complex critters as us needed to. We create coherent models, and have this thinky running commentary which can reflect, so we can navigate the world. And a sense of self, as an embodied being moving through the world, makes sense within that model.

That's a reasonable explanation. It's based on how brains work. It explains why certain ways of thinking and language come naturally to us.

As to the nature of this Something, I'm none the wiser. 'Abstraction' doesn't mean what you were using it to mean, that doesn't help. Now you say this is what this Something-I is -
'Abstract' means a part of a totality without which the totality cannot exist, and which cannot exist apart from that totality. Or at least this is how I define it in this context.
Which I can see would link in with your overall notion of inter-relatedness, that the world only exists when I experience it, but -

It doesn't follow that there is a Something Else apart from experiential states, because the experiencing is the key part of the relatedness surely.
And I'd just say, like before, that whether the world exists independently of your or my or anyone's experiencing it, is either the ontological state of affairs or it isn't. If it exists independently it will carry on when I'm dead, like it does while I'm asleep. That's how the world presents itself at least. If Inter-relatedness is key, then there needs to be some kind of theory, rather than just speculation. Because a sense of self can be explained, and the language argument can be explained, by our usual ways of explaining the world, as I've laid out. Tho experiential states themselves can't be explained.

Tamminen
Posts: 723
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tamminen » March 30th, 2018, 1:01 pm

Gertie wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 12:01 pm
I go back to my point, you're just basing this on our normal language structure.
Our language reflects ontology. I think this was also Wittgenstein's point in Philosophical Investigations. But there are also other grounds for my views, based on phenomenological intuition and logic. And evolution and ontology are only two ways of seeing the same phenomenon.
And you don't address my alternative hypothesis that a 'sense' of self might have evolved as part of the way we our experiential states 'organise' into coherent models...
The sense of self has evolved so much that Descartes could finally detect the self. And so can we. I am wondering why we want so desperately to get rid of ourselves. The sense of self is an experience, the self is not.
'Abstraction' doesn't mean what you were using it to mean...
It has many meanings, but this is what I have learned on philosophy lessons 50 years ago.
If Inter-relatedness is key, then there needs to be some kind of theory, rather than just speculation.
I have a theory, a metaphysical theory, which you can read in some of my posts. It cannot be a scientific theory because we do not seek empirical facts. The subject is not empirical.
If it exists independently it will carry on when I'm dead, like it does while I'm asleep.
It can carry on even if its being depends on the being of the subject. This is what seems to be so difficult to understand, and this is what I have tried to explain in my theory.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Namelesss » March 30th, 2018, 2:49 pm

Gertie wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 6:46 am
Nameless
Okay, one more time;
A thumbnail, from a single direction (there are others);
Quantum mechanics has (also) revealed to us that 'matter', all that is ever perceived, is essentially, ultimately, Universally, 'composed' of Undifferentiated Mind, 'information waves', undifferentiated potential (Bindu)!
I'm afraid I'm very ignorant when it comes to QM, I'd appreciate an idiot's guide explanation (yourself or a link) of how QM shows this?
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind%20stuff
Definition of mind stuff
: the elemental material held to be the basis of reality and to consist internally of the constituent substance of mind and to appear externally in the form of matter — compare monism 1a

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7229
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Greta » March 30th, 2018, 5:52 pm

I had an idea in bed last night, thinking about how the space around the atomic nuclei prevents them from touching each other and how each electron does the same, itself surrounded by its own shroud that keeps them from touching other electrons. Without that isolation, the electrons will degenerate into neutrons, as occurs within stars.

Then I considered an analogy with the problem of other minds and the impenetrable "space" between each mind. So, logically, without separation (opacity of mind) a discrete individual mind or ego cannot exist. There appears to be a strong analogy to be found between the physical space that separates entities and the opacity of mental processing that separates them, the separation of energy and the separation of information.

This is admittedly basic and undeveloped so far but that's where I got up to before falling asleep and just doing a quick brain dump before I forget.

User avatar
Tosen
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tosen » March 30th, 2018, 9:26 pm

Greta wrote:
March 27th, 2018, 3:03 am
Interesting OP. Sam Harris spoke about this, how our minds are a conveyor belt of unbidden thoughts from which we choose. We cannot choose to think about anything at all, only the content of our "ever-flowing river of unformed thoughts". Rather, we focus on various thoughts that pass by in the thought stream while letting others go.

Why do we focus on particular thoughts? Seemingly association - the flow of ideas pass though until something resonates, like a fisherman ignoring the debris and focusing on the animal life.

I find this topic quite confusing. Due to the feedback loops involved it all becomes devilishly complex. Seemingly thoughts are layered fractally, with ever finer controls, then the controls of the controls, then the controls of the controls of the controls ...
The confusion is all due to the law of causation that matter exhibits, it's deterministic. In this case, the causal-relations of neurological reactions in the brain, as backed up by neuroscience. Sam Harris saw the implications of this and concluded that this "ego" or the "I" is just an illusion. Because the brain can be reduced to "brain activity". Activity in the frontal cortex, temporal cortex, etc. This activity is not "sent" or to a specific, unitary part of the brain where the "self" resides. By this I mean that along all the intercommunication of neurons through the many locations of the brain, all of these chain reactions do not have a terminal point, all of the constant chain of events do not arrive at a common ending point, instead, they are just "constant". This excludes the possibility of materially locating the "I" in the brain, at least for now by the scientific method and it's technological advancements. So, thoughts are determined by the complexity of causal-relations. This is what you said that thoughts are layered with controls, then the controls of the controls, ect. This is just the attempt of finding the underlying cause of all of those causes. But even how deterministic this is by this explanation, there still is a perceiver of thoughts. This almost places the "I" in a transcendental realm, as it cannot be empirically validated, as of yet. And rationally examining the phenomenology of mind ends up all being spooky. A serious philosophical problem indeed.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Namelesss » March 30th, 2018, 9:56 pm

Greta wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 5:52 pm
... the problem of other minds...
Other 'minds' or other Perspectives?
I theorize that there is One single Mind/Thought (Omni- means One! ALL inclusive), and all the seeming diversity of thought is a feature of all the unique Perspectives of it!
We do not manufacture 'thought' in that wet lump of meat rattling around in our skulls, like all that exists, thought is perceived!
'Problem' solved. *__-

User avatar
Tosen
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Tosen » March 30th, 2018, 11:18 pm

Right, the thinker ('I') is already assumed in the ''I think'' premise.

The way I see it, for Descartes to exclude all doubt, the initial premise would have to be - 'Experiential states (thoughts) exist'.

That a thinker is required for the thoughts to exist is an inference, which can be doubted. Perhaps partly a result of our natural/habitual grammar, which leads us to tend to conceptualise in a framework of Subject (I) --> Verb (Think) --> Object (Thought). That structure feels logical and works for us in our everyday lives of physical causation, but might not reflect the nature of experiential states.

I'd suggest a sense of self might simply be the result of how these experiential states manifest. If we look at brains they are highly complex interacting subsystems, no 'mini-me' homunculous or command and control centre has been discovered, where the Cartesian Theatre plays out and mini-me makes decisions and issues instructions to motor systems.
Gertie wrote:
March 28th, 2018, 11:44 am
Which suggests that the sense of self might emerge from these subsystems as part of the process of creating usefully coherent narratives and models of the world from the otherwise cacophonous jumble of incoming perceptions, memories, sensations. The self as part of the experiencing, rather than the experiencer. No space between the two, the thinky reflective voice might just be the subsystem which creates the coherent contemporaneous narrative, including the sense of 'I'.
This explanation is highly theoretical and resides in the speculative realm of neuroscience, the philosophical aspect of neuroscience. I will add to the analysis, but I will first add a statement from the analysis of neuroscience.
"Consciousness is a product of neural states and recursive representations. Billions upon billions of molecular states in billions upon billions of neural cells interconnected by trillions of nodes of communication are presented in the brain as small isolated events and large inclusive events. Consciousness is the representation of large, inclusive events that become (or have the potential to become) memory that also exhibits temporal awareness." http://brainsource.com/?p=102#more-102.

This is an excellent read if you want to know the nature of the brain analyzed from an empirical, ultimately scientific standpoint. The article is from a neuropsychologist and university professor Dennis P. Swiercinsky, Ph.D.

Now, adding to your ideas by later applying Dennis's ones, you saying that the sense of self might emerge from one of these subsystems(accompanied by the "thinky" voice you say), for the purpose of creating a comprehensive narrative of the world that fits the current experiential state of the brain, is not wholly incorrect. It seems you are not placing a space between the "self" and this "thinky" internal voice, instead, you include both in the equation. Self still is the ego and "thinky voice" as mind. According to your explanation, the thinky voice is a subsystem that is connected to the comprehension or "making sense" of the bombardment of neurological processes in relation to the current contemporary perception of external stimuli. This is precisely the mind (thinky voice, or the one who "speaks" to us) doing all of this, the producer of the thoughts. And the self being this "embodied specific point of view"(quoting you) that perceives the current EXPERIENTIAL STATE that the mind is EXPERIENCING. This is what I understood, yet you separated self and the thinky voice in the subsequent paragraph, evidencing how complex to rationally maintain your initial claim was.

Though in this explanation it is purely speculative the purpose of this "self" and I believe you are coming from a biological standpoint. Trying to define purpose of "self" from a neurological standpoint. If you say that the thinky voice is necessarily accompanied with the sense of "self"(The self being the product of these subsystems), in other words, you are saying that mind and ego ARE part of the act of the "experiencing" of this comprehensive "narrative". So the ego is not the "experiencer" but part of the experience itself, of the current experiential state. I can't follow this at all. It's like saying there are two minds that are divided yet conjoined, both experience things at the same time but one of them is the "self" and is aware of the other. I don't know if i'm missing something with my logic. This is really not saying anything but just a claim, a possibility. Denni's evidence can offer quite a few insights in general. Consciousness of thoughts is the the product of the complexity of all of these processes at a molecular level, that reach a large, mentally capable(By this I mean the mind is capable of creating an image of that processing) representative image of that same processing. Neurological processes that can be known to awareness. This clearly states the incomprehensible complexity when it comes to the formulation of any thought, and how unknown those processes are to us. But it doesn't explain why we have this sense of awareness, even if that explanation is grounded on a speculative evolutionary/biological standpoint. I can see why dualism of mind/body exists in philosophy.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Namelesss » March 31st, 2018, 2:55 am

Tosen wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 9:26 pm
The confusion is all due to the law of causation...
The what?!?
Really?
(thank you for the smile!)
Did you come up with that 'law'? *__-

Post Reply